If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I do find it funny how fetuses are the concern of politicians.
When you are as such, they care about you. When you are alive, they tax you. When you are dead, they tax you one more time for old times' sake (fuck that), and then they proceed to care as if you were brothers. The psychostick of politics just stuck its dick in our face AGAIN.

I see how libertarians are to blame for this, static. After all, we only have zero seats in congress, and passionate voters who all end up going Republican anyway. Maybe you should start blaming the culprit, not the scapegoat. Hm?

I see how libertarians are to blame for this, static. After all, we only have zero seats in congress, and passionate voters who all end up going Republican anyway. Maybe you should start blaming the culprit, not the scapegoat. Hm?

Sure, if you only consider official members of the Libertarian party. But many, if not most, Republican Congressman operate on a primarily libertarian philosophy, such as Rand Paul and Ron Paul, the former of whom still holds a seat in the Kentucky state Senate --- the whole concept of scrapping Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid is based on a libertarian philosophy of "very small government;" Grover Norquist, a self-proclaimed conservative libertarian, identifies strongly with the Republican party and founded the Americans for Tax Reform PAC, which was signed by 95% of Republicans in office in 2012, as well as every Republican Presidential candidate that year except for John Huntsman.

Same goes for those idiots who call the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" and say it's a "takeover of the healthcare industry;" they use such extreme language because they view any intrusion of the government into private industry to be "unfair" and "bad." And if someone says the EPA is a "job killer" (not because they actually kill jobs, but because their regulations cause multi-billion-dollar companies to make slightly less money each year), there's a 100% chance that he or she is a libertarian.

Oh, and de-regulation is another libertarian principle, and yet it's supported by the vast majority of Republicans.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Well, why don't you be fully honest here. Called them (adjective) Republicans, because they're not Libertarians. Of course, someone like Ron Paul IS, but he is really the exception, because he embodies the true libertarian principle: socially allowing, fiscally prudent. Hell, he's even anti-war! Some Republican. Now name another Republican (but not John McCain) who is that anti-war.

So, Obama's an idiot, you're saying? I don't know if you watched the debates, but if you did, you should have noticed something: Obama's actually grown to like the name. I found that funny. But why don't we start considering facts in our arguments, instead of rambunctious name-calling on account of noun usage.

Finally, why wouldn't a Libertarian prez be nice? Think about it. No frivolous wars. You'd pay less taxes, and because of loophole killing, the rich would pay more. Furthermore, businesses would have a say in the regulations that come up, for once. And spending would be cut to the point of prudency becoming an American value, as opposed to anorexia, kardashianitis, and tmzology.

Well, why don't you be fully honest here. Called them (adjective) Republicans, because they're not Libertarians.

Not *every* Republican is a libertarian. John Huntsman, for example. But the current Republican platform is, by and large, a significantly libertarian one. Of course, every single libertarian everywhere accuses every single other libertarian of "not being a true libertarian," so naturally any examples I provide will simply be shot down for not being "true libertarians." But the fact remains that the large majority of right-wing fiscal policy is libertarian in principle --- eliminate tax revenue, cut public services to people who don't generate massive amounts of income, determine the value of someone's life based on how much capital they are able to contribute into the system; these are all basic libertarian principles.

The point being, while not all Republicans are libertarian, I refer to libertarians because it is their ideology which is largely the problem. If Republicans weren't libertarian, I wouldn't have to bash them as much, and so calling them Republicans gives the false impression that I'm against them solely for being Republican; if Republicans could adopt a more fiscally and socially realistic platform, I wouldn't be as opposed to them.

Of course, someone like Ron Paul IS, but he is really the exception, because he embodies the true libertarian principle: socially allowing, fiscally prudent.

Also racist newsletters, opposing the Civil Rights Act, opposing desegregation during the Civil Rights era, acting like some kind of hero for bullying people who don't have the power to defend themselves...typical libertarian principles.

Hell, he's even anti-war! Some Republican. Now name another Republican (but not John McCain) who is that anti-war.

"Name one Republican that's anti-war, except Republicans that are anti-war." Anyway, being opposed to war in principle is stupid, because sometimes war is necessary, while being opposed to one particular war is not simply a libertarian principle; I'd say we agree in opposing the Iraq war, but incidentally, not as a matter of real principled agreement.

So, Obama's an idiot, you're saying? I don't know if you watched the debates, but if you did, you should have noticed something: Obama's actually grown to like the name. I found that funny.

It's a valid tactic --- own the language, own the debate. It took some of the venom out of "Obamacare." But it's still stupid; they tried to put his name on it and make it personal, instead of attacking anything the legislation actually does. You know what's funny? All these morons bragging about "blocking Obamacare" in their respective states say they're unilaterally opposed to every provision of the law, but when you ask them about the individual provisions (without telling them it's part of "Obamacare"), suddenly they seem to agree with them very strongly! Interesting, isn't it?

But why don't we start considering facts in our arguments, instead of rambunctious name-calling on account of noun usage.

You mean like all those pesky facts linking libertarian ideology with the contemporary Republican platform?

Finally, why wouldn't a Libertarian prez be nice?

Because he wants to eliminate the EPA (so much for keeping lead and Benzene out of drinking water, somehow allowing companies to leave dangerous mineral deposits on public land will "create more jobs"); he wants to get rid of the Department of Education (knowing full well that Texas exists); wants to completely de-fund and phase out Social Security (retired seniors and people who've paid into it their whole lives be damned; "that'll teach those poor people a lesson for thinking they'll get something out of the money they've paid in their whole lives!"); he wants to remove government support in general (no more SNAP program, no more college grants, no more keeping poor seniors out of poverty, no more making sure children of single parents don't go hungry).

Oh, but don't worry, you'll be able to own any gun you want, so you can defend all the other rights you don't have because the government won't enforce them (because the libertarian president de-funded the police, military and fire department). And go ahead and scrap those amendments past #10, because "the Constitution only lets the government do what is strictly outlined in the Constitution," and that means no amendments past the Bill of Rights because the amendments have text that wasn't written in the original Constitution, and so libertarians say it's unconstitutional (even though the Constitution was made to be a living document which would be amended as time went on).

Of course most libertarians will say they oppose things like that, but of course that's because they are unaware of the natural logical consequences of the libertarian philosophy and the sound clips they're constantly parroting. It's like a kid who says he wants to be an evil overlord when he grows up because his favorite character on TV is an evil overlord, not realizing what that career path would entail in reality. That's the single biggest problem with libertarians --- they're so concerned with espousing their ideals, and telling everyone what a great and perfect utopian society this would be if only everyone were to become libertarian, that they don't take the time to explore the consequences of implementing their ideas in a real world; they live in a fantasy land where no action has negative consequences (unintended or otherwise) if it's done in pursuit of a libertarian dream world.

and because of loophole killing, the rich would pay more.

Actually, Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed that he's in favor of massive de-regulation of banks and the private sector in general (including removing regulations that would prevent banks from gambling with customers' money, as well as prevent them from betting thousands of times what they actually have on risky derivatives trades). Both he and his son are also in favor of repealing the part of the Civil Rights Act which affects private businesses, allowing them to legally discriminate against blacks. Of course, he assures us that he's not racist, he just thinks there should be a market for that kind of thing (because, I mean, with all that's going on, making sure that wealthy racists have a right to discriminate against other ethnicities is such an important priority to have, it's not like there are other more pressing issues to deal with at the moment).

Furthermore, businesses would have a say in the regulations that come up, for once.

They already do, and that's the problem. De-regulation and lax campaign finance law have allowed CEOs and their subsidiary PACs to donate to politicians at ratios far in excess of what average citizens making median income are able to match, giving them far more of a say in regulations than anyone else. That's pretty much exactly the problem, is that banks (and most wealthy industries, really) write their own regulations. The fact that Ron Paul doesn't understand that is enough for me to disregard him out of hand.

And spending would be cut to the point of prudency becoming an American value, as opposed to anorexia, kardashianitis, and tmzology.

First off, government spending isn't equivalent to anorexia and celebrity TV. It actually does help the economy in times of economic downturn, and many experts agree --- look to the FDR administration pre-WWII, for example. Social Security brought nearly half of American seniors out of poverty, while programs like the CCC put unemployed young folk to work while also getting government jobs done, like paving roads. The New Deal (along with WWII) was a significant factor in pulling us out of the Great Depression. A lot of liberals were hoping for a sort of "New New Deal" from Obama with this last budget negotiation, but since he's either a pansy or a Republican shill, all we got was almost all of the Bush Tax cuts made permanent, tax breaks for fucking motor speedways (among other things), and more gifts for campaign backers, contractors and private investors. Oh, and we still get to keep corporate welfare and massive oil and defense subsidies. Yay.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

You mean the Article 1 Section 8 that says:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United states; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"

Yes, but it is the perversion of the wording that gets us into trouble. Certainly you cannot be dense enough to believe the founders meant "welfare" as it is being used today?!? Otherwise we wouldn't have had revolutionary war generals end up in debtors jail, and SS would have been around since the beginning. The amount of poverty after the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, or the civil war was greater than the great depression, yet no ss.

First off, how is another discussion; what's important is that we agree that the debt should be honored. And the Constitution clearly states that it must be.

We need to honor the debt, but STOP the insanity of SS

That said....during a time of economic crisis, government spending should be expanded until the private sector stabilizes and the middle class is strengthened. During periods of economic stability, it is safer to cut taxes and spending; during periods of economic tribulation, spending is necessary because spending drives the economy --- history has shown that tax cutsdo not spur job growth, while direct government investment does (big shock, I know).

Thank you Mr Keynes, but if the "government spending cures economic hardship" policies worked, then we should be in a roaring economy right now!

The basic problem with libertarian economic philosophy is that it asserts that if we just give all of our extra money to the richest American business owners, we can trust them to "do the right thing" and enact the perfect business model that will, someday down the road, make things better for all of us.

What?
Libertarians want to give money to rich businessmen? wow!

However, those of us who actually pay more in taxes (the middle class)

Umm, thats not exactly true either, while there are more middle class families, the middle class ISN'T where the bulk of the money comes from.

would prefer that our money be invested directly into job creation, so that we can provide a basic living for ourselves --- not funneled into profit machines like Wall Street that are designed solely to take money out of mainstream circulation so that it doesn't benefit the economy at all.

And the basic problem with you leftie-type's economic policies is that the wages people earn are subject to government seizure, at the whim of the politicians (if it is popular with the voters(half of which don't pay federal taxes)) if they thinkit is a good idea (or it can buy them votes with whatever demographic their after this week). Aren't you doing the same thing "trusting them (politicians in your case) to do the right thing"? Even though historically you've been let down

Even Reagan agreed, cutting SS will not reduce the deficit, as the two are unrelated.

OH! Well the The Beatles thought taxes were bad, does that change your mind?!

So you agree that we can do things even if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say we can?

Yes, at the state level.

The Congress has a Constitutional right to "take your money." It's called taxation and it's in the Constitution. End of story.

I have never argued that they CAN'T tax, just that they can only tax for what is within their purview, which takes us back to your distorted view on what was meant by "general welfare", and also by interstate commerce.

If you believe it's a "ponzi scheme," why would you be okay with it at any level?

I wouldn't vote for it at the state level, but at least it IS in the purview of state government. See? We are a republic.

No, I don't have a problem with where you feel their help should come from, actually. I just think there should be a backup plan in the event that someone is old, or doesn't have an extended family/community to take care of them, and has no choice other than to slip into poverty and die homeless or get some help.
I wish I could get you to address that point, instead of reading something else into what I'm saying.

With what I said there is a back up, the state.

Provide some evidence. Where can I go right now and get signed up for SS benefits legally, without committing fraud?

It is the fraud that is the problem, and it is rampant.

Provide some evidence.

I am jaded. I personally volunteer my services a lot, the company I work for does as well, and unfortunately, more often then not (read8-9 out of 10), I am going into the homes of those, who are receiving the full spectrum of benefits, and am tripping over the boxes to their new 50'+ LCD TV's, fighting through the piles of stuff that would make Hoarder's proud, while they lie on their ass, texting on their smartphone. Is it all of them, no, but far more than not.

That's good, because Social Security is a service the federal government provides. So I guess you're okay with that, then?

but not one they are SUPPOSED to

So retired citizens are deadbeats? Military personnel who have been honorably discharged because of injuries, trauma or retirement are deadbeats? The physically disabled are deadbeats? I have to say I disagree.

That's your problem, is your entire view is predicated on a fundamental ideological misrepresentation of what SS stands for. It's not for "expecting others to do what I can do for myself." It's a matter of having a public option to save for my retirement, which I can then use when I retire in the event that I don't have wealthy relatives to help support me.

No, my view is predicated on the fact that I don't believe that it is in the job description of the FEDERAL government to do. But is also more than a "public option" to save for retirement, it is a personal responsibility.

If we are to live as the founders "intended," we'd all be riding horses and firing muskets. Next you'll be telling me we should live by a literal interpretation of the Bible and every widow should demand to have her husband's brother marry her lest she stone him to death. Or every rapist should be married to their victim immediately. Deuteronomy Now.

Yes, but it is the perversion of the wording that gets us into trouble. Certainly you cannot be dense enough to believe the founders meant "welfare" as it is being used today?!?

"Welfare" is a very general term, so I can't imagine the founding fathers had a very specific form of welfare in mind when they wrote that. That said, I'll leave it at that if you concede that "arms" didn't mean the same thing back in Colonial times as it does today --- they had muskets, we have AR-15s and Bushmasters.

Will you concede that point?

and SS would have been around since the beginning.

What about the 13th Amendment? It wasn't around from the beginning. It banned slavery. It seems that the founding fathers didn't intend to illegalize slavery, so I guess we should scrap that one as well.

We need to honor the debt, but STOP the insanity of SS

I agree; we should stop the insanity caused by unnecessary borrowing from the otherwise perfectly-stable SS trust fund.

Thank you Mr Keynes, but if the "government spending cures economic hardship" policies worked, then we should be in a roaring economy right now!

It doesn't "cure" economic hardship. It has been shown through history and scientific examination to have a beneficial impact on the economy in times of economic hardship; no one policy can cure economic hardship. It's much more nuanced than that.

What?
Libertarians want to give money to rich businessmen? wow!

Yes. They call it "tax cuts," and we just got a ton of them made permanent in this latest budget deal. Unless you want to argue that profitable motor speedway owners, for example, are not generally "rich businessmen." Anyway, the philosophy is that they shouldn't pay taxes because "the guvmint dun took mah munneh," but those same people who claim to hate taxation so much are more than happy to use the public services that are paid for by our taxes; they want to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak --- hence, they want us to "hand them money" (by cutting their taxes but keeping the services which they find to be benificial to them personally [while expecting everyone else to help pay for said services], while cutting the services that benefit everyone else, like SS and Medicare).

Umm, thats not exactly true either, while there are more middle class families, the middle class ISN'T where the bulk of the money comes from.

True. In a strict numbers game, the top income earners pay more. This is because the top income earners technically pay more money, but they pay a significantly lower percentage of their income overall into taxes (i.e. their tax rate is lower); poorer people make less money, but through the payroll tax and sales tax, they pay a larger percentage of their income into the system (which, numerically, isn't much); 50% of $500 a month is much less than 9% of $500 billion, after all. That is true. And capital gains are taxed very weakly, with many loopholes available to abuse, should the payer wish to avoid paying a percentage of those already-meager rates.

And the basic problem with you leftie-type's economic policies is that the wages people earn are subject to government seizure, at the whim of the politicians (if it is popular with the voters(half of which don't pay federal taxes)) if they thinkit is a good idea (or it can buy them votes with whatever demographic their after this week). Aren't you doing the same thing "trusting them (politicians in your case) to do the right thing"? Even though historically you've been let down

(1) Yes, the Constitution guarantees that the government has the right to collect taxes, i.e. seize a portion of your wages (Article I, Section II -- "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by..."). We've discussed this already. Whether or not you or I like it makes no difference; it's legal, and there is no Constitutional grounds on which to oppose it.

(2) I can vote for which politicians I like. Unfortunately, I have no such vote in the private policies of a corporation (some might say I do through my purchasing power, but that power is very limited and it only affects those decisions in a very distant and indirect manner); if a company is not being run well, and my tax dollars are being invested into that company through unbalanced tax breaks, there is nothing I can say or do to change the management policies of that company. So I'd say there is a fundamental difference between a government and a corporation; those tax breaks just put one more link in the chain leading from my influence to the final result.

Yes, at the state level.

Based on what?

I have never argued that they CAN'T tax, just that they can only tax for what is within their purview, which takes us back to your distorted view on what was meant by "general welfare", and also by interstate commerce.

What, exactly, do you think the authors of the Constitution *specifically* meant by "general welfare?" You seem to be able to somehow divine exactly what was on their minds at the time of its writing; perhaps you can enlighten me?

I wouldn't vote for it at the state level, but at least it IS in the purview of state government. See? We are a republic.

Yes; a Constitutional Republic, overseen by a central federal government (which is established in the Constitution).

With what I said there is a back up, the state.

So, your reasoning is basically:

(1) We shouldn't have SS, because it is a ponzi scheme and is terrible (even though it provides a safety net to impoverished seniors and the disabled);

(2) The federal government shouldn't provide this safety net to the citizens because it doesn't have the right (and it's a ponzi scheme);

(3) But we don't need to worry about the safety net at the federal level because SS can be enacted at the state level as a safety net.

I just don't understand that. If you think SS should be disposed of and that it's a "ponzi scheme," why do you say "the state is the safety net," if from within that same view you say that SS should not be enacted at the state level? If that's the case, then no, the government at the state level is not a "backup."

It is the fraud that is the problem, and it is rampant.

So you admit, then, that it's not a problem with the core program of SS?

As for this fraud, who do you think is committing SS fraud? Could you provide some hard evidence that fraud is occurring in large numbers, backed by something other than your own prejudiced, generalized assessment of people who are subsisting on SS income?

I am jaded. I personally volunteer my services a lot, the company I work for does as well, and unfortunately, more often then not (read8-9 out of 10), I am going into the homes of those, who are receiving the full spectrum of benefits, and am tripping over the boxes to their new 50'+ LCD TV's, fighting through the piles of stuff that would make Hoarder's proud, while they lie on their ass, texting on their smartphone. Is it all of them, no, but far more than not.

I could provide just as many anecdotes to the contrary. Do you have any scientific evidence?

No, my view is predicated on the fact that I don't believe that it is in the job description of the FEDERAL government to do.

Then, unfortunately, you are incorrect.

But is also more than a "public option" to save for retirement, it is a personal responsibility.

The other edge of that sword is that, whenever the government provides a service to you, they invasively micromanage the details of your life in order to ascertain that you're cooperating with invasively strict guidelines. If we're going to start micromanaging who can get SS because they've made poor financial decisions in the past, then that opens up a whole new government purview of invasive micromanaging procedures --- if you decide not to pay the mortgage this month, so you have a little extra money for other necessities, maybe the government says, "you have a little extra money this year, so you don't need a tax cut, in fact, let's raise your taxes, since you have more money than we expected you to." I could just as easily argue that it's not the government's job to tell you how to spend your own disposable income.

What people do with their disposable income is not the government's business; these types of programs are not based on such fickle and flippant statistics, but rather on mathematical ratios --- how much you make, versus how much it costs to live and fulfill requirements x and y and z, were you to spend your money on reasonable necessities. I don't think you should have to allow your entire financial existence to be controlled by the government, just because you collect money for a government program that you qualified for based on an established, proven mathematical standard; you can only micromanage so much of a person's life before you start to control them. The purpose of government programs like SNAP and SS are not to control people's finances individually, but to give them help in an area where they need it; whether they put that help to good use or squander it is not up to me or you or the government, and it's unfair (and unrealistic, and unscientific) to judge people who do make use of that help based on the actions of people whom you perceive to be squandering it.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

Do I even need to point out that conservatives generally favor arming the fuck out of everyone and shooting to kill if someone tries to grab your wallet and run? How's your "right to life" doing today?

This is funny. I sure as hell hope you are not being serious or that this is even remotely a valid stance regarding gun control or for that matter, even a rational thought.

Don't steal wallet...won't get shot. I know that takes a lot of time to digest, but give it a try, it may sink in.

I am impressed you are so concerned about a criminals right to life when they are committing a crime on an innocent law abiding citizen. God forbid you ever get robbed, but if you do, throw in a few extra bucks for me ok? The yell..."Hey, that's for Moto, don't fuck with him...mmmmmk!?" I would rather they have a little extra from you than bother me.

I've had shit stolen from me, and while those people are dickheads and losers, I would stand up for their right to life. Breaking man-made laws does not remove the right to live. Who the hell are you to decide that someone deserves to die?